I'm wondering why Proview doesn't offer the IPAD trademark for any iPad-clone makers and try to sell its right in China?
...if they were right about still having the trademark for China. It seems nobody believes they could win the case, not even the clone makers.
Do you think a buyer would buy something and build a business around it when Apple is on the other side of the table and the ownership of what you're buying is contested? Really?
I tend to agree- that was very sneaky indeed. Not sure if it's illegal, but definitely shady.
You want to see shady?
Here's Proview's 'Internet Personal Access Device':
Look a little familiar to you?
Apple should begin legal proceedings against them for copying the iMac just to double their legal costs and make the whole thing look a little more unattractive for all those hoping to benefit from it.
I am not a lawyer. but if it is a trademark issue I see a big difference between something called a Internet Personal Access Device (IPAD) and Apple's iPad. One is an abbreviation of 4 words and the other a logo or name in and of it's self. I am suer someone else has an explanation. Sorry or Thanks Dave
I tend to agree- that was very sneaky indeed. Not sure if it's illegal, but definitely shady.
In apple's defense, without the dummy corporation, everyone in the world would not only have known apple was building a tablet, but what the tablet was called. So the dummy corp protected them from losing value in the name before they had even launched a product.
IMHO the value of the mark is the value of the mark, it should not depend on who owns it and if they have deep pockets or not. "Oh it's Apple that wants it? That will be $100 bajillion dollars, please."
No, there's absolutely nothing shady or illegal about that at all. The shady and illegal part comes when companies would have charged Apple MORE simply because they know it's Apple.
Google Blue Harvest.
Doesnt Apple get things cheaper because they are Apple? Like tax breaks on land. You and I couldn't get that. Its usually called swindling when one party approaches a second party with the intention to buy something not up for sale because the first party sees a worth that the second party is unaware of.
Doesnt Apple get things cheaper because they are Apple? Like tax breaks on land.
Not that I know of.
Quote:
Its usually called swindling when one party approaches a second party with the intention to buy something not up for sale because the first party sees a worth that the second party is unaware of.
Doesnt Apple get things cheaper because they are Apple? Like tax breaks on land. You and I couldn't get that. Its usually called swindling when one party approaches a second party with the intention to buy something not up for sale because the first party sees a worth that the second party is unaware of.
... they think they can pull some strings and get things fixed. And they may be right. But I suspect eventually China will determine that letting this company die and not fleecing Apple will be in their best interests.
I sort of agree...this isn't an issue of clear-cut merits.
The question is, whether Apple's "friends" (read, "partners"), in Chinese business have more, or less, influence with the Chinese government than Proview's "friends" (read, "debt-holders").
I 'sort of agree' because I, too, think it would be more in China's long-term interests to support Apple...but, even in China, there must be some version of "the old school tie".
Do you think a buyer would buy something and build a business around it when Apple is on the other side of the table and the ownership of what you're buying is contested? Really?
Many people suggested Apple to choose a different name for the product selling in China, especially if the court banned them. If Apple lost the case in Chinese court, it could mean that Proview is still the owner of the trademark of IPAD, for China, so it could sell the name for any clone tablet maker, that produces those clones anyways.
That's why I don't think packing iPad with a different name for Chinese market would be a good idea.
If Apple has indeed made an offer (and a non-trivial one at that), doesn't this suggest the case is not so open and shut, black and white or easy to put to rest?
Yes.
No. The only thing the offer suggests is that Apple is willing to pay $16M to end this.
It is already over. The trial has concluded. There is nothing to end.
I never said they were guilty of it only that they're accused.
I don't understand why I need to you remind you of this. What you said was "Its usually called swindling when one party approaches a second party with the intention to buy something not up for sale because the first party sees a worth that the second party is unaware of."
I said that that's not swindling. Then mysteriously you started talking about something totally different. Make up your mind.
What Apple is accused of has nothing to do with what your incorrect definition of swindling is.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by mac-user
I'm wondering why Proview doesn't offer the IPAD trademark for any iPad-clone makers and try to sell its right in China?
...if they were right about still having the trademark for China. It seems nobody believes they could win the case, not even the clone makers.
Do you think a buyer would buy something and build a business around it when Apple is on the other side of the table and the ownership of what you're buying is contested? Really?
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigBillyGoatGruff
No. The only thing the offer suggests is that Apple is willing to pay $16M to end this.
So Apple is always willing to pay $16M to end issues that are easy to put to rest?
Hmm, I've got some real estate for ya, mate ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by ankleskater
So Apple is always willing to pay $16M to end issues that are easy to put to rest?
Hmm, I've got some real estate for ya, mate ...
The poster you're replying to is not suggesting what you said he is suggesting. I think you know that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ankleskater
So Apple is always willing to pay $16M to end issues that are easy to put to rest?
Hmm, I've got some real estate for ya, mate ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigBillyGoatGruff
No. The only thing the offer suggests is that Apple is willing to pay $16M to end this.
not all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigBillyGoatGruff
Quote:
not all."
Nah I saw it, that word "this" was really "every problem" i saw it. You're such a liar
Quote:
Originally Posted by jnoel
I tend to agree- that was very sneaky indeed. Not sure if it's illegal, but definitely shady.
You want to see shady?
Here's Proview's 'Internet Personal Access Device':
Look a little familiar to you?
Apple should begin legal proceedings against them for copying the iMac just to double their legal costs and make the whole thing look a little more unattractive for all those hoping to benefit from it.
I am not a lawyer. but if it is a trademark issue I see a big difference between something called a Internet Personal Access Device (IPAD) and Apple's iPad. One is an abbreviation of 4 words and the other a logo or name in and of it's self. I am suer someone else has an explanation. Sorry or Thanks Dave
Gold diggers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jnoel
I tend to agree- that was very sneaky indeed. Not sure if it's illegal, but definitely shady.
In apple's defense, without the dummy corporation, everyone in the world would not only have known apple was building a tablet, but what the tablet was called. So the dummy corp protected them from losing value in the name before they had even launched a product.
IMHO the value of the mark is the value of the mark, it should not depend on who owns it and if they have deep pockets or not. "Oh it's Apple that wants it? That will be $100 bajillion dollars, please."
Doesnt Apple get things cheaper because they are Apple? Like tax breaks on land. You and I couldn't get that. Its usually called swindling when one party approaches a second party with the intention to buy something not up for sale because the first party sees a worth that the second party is unaware of.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
Doesnt Apple get things cheaper because they are Apple? Like tax breaks on land.
Not that I know of.
Quote:
Its usually called swindling when one party approaches a second party with the intention to buy something not up for sale because the first party sees a worth that the second party is unaware of.
But it was for sale.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
Doesnt Apple get things cheaper because they are Apple? Like tax breaks on land. You and I couldn't get that. Its usually called swindling when one party approaches a second party with the intention to buy something not up for sale because the first party sees a worth that the second party is unaware of.
That's not called swindling
Quote:
Originally Posted by cameronj
That's not called swindling
sure it is....
swin·dle
1. To obtain by fraudulent means
That's exactly what Proview is accusing Apple of.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cameronj
... they think they can pull some strings and get things fixed. And they may be right. But I suspect eventually China will determine that letting this company die and not fleecing Apple will be in their best interests.
I sort of agree...this isn't an issue of clear-cut merits.
The question is, whether Apple's "friends" (read, "partners"), in Chinese business have more, or less, influence with the Chinese government than Proview's "friends" (read, "debt-holders").
I 'sort of agree' because I, too, think it would be more in China's long-term interests to support Apple...but, even in China, there must be some version of "the old school tie".
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
sure it is....
swin·dle
1. To obtain by fraudulent means
That's exactly what Proview is accusing Apple of.
What Apple is being accused of doesn't matter. Fraud means something very specific, and Apple didn't commit fraud by hiding its identity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cameronj
Do you think a buyer would buy something and build a business around it when Apple is on the other side of the table and the ownership of what you're buying is contested? Really?
Many people suggested Apple to choose a different name for the product selling in China, especially if the court banned them. If Apple lost the case in Chinese court, it could mean that Proview is still the owner of the trademark of IPAD, for China, so it could sell the name for any clone tablet maker, that produces those clones anyways.
That's why I don't think packing iPad with a different name for Chinese market would be a good idea.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
1. To obtain by fraudulent means
That's exactly what Proview is accusing Apple of.
Fortunately, Apple didn't and wasn't, respectively.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cameronj
What Apple is being accused of doesn't matter. Fraud means something very specific, and Apple didn't commit fraud by hiding its identity.
I never said they were guilty of it only that they're accused.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigBillyGoatGruff
Quote:
Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz
Quote:
Originally Posted by ankleskater
If Apple has indeed made an offer (and a non-trivial one at that), doesn't this suggest the case is not so open and shut, black and white or easy to put to rest?
Yes.
No. The only thing the offer suggests is that Apple is willing to pay $16M to end this.
It is already over. The trial has concluded. There is nothing to end.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
I never said they were guilty of it only that they're accused.
I don't understand why I need to you remind you of this. What you said was "Its usually called swindling when one party approaches a second party with the intention to buy something not up for sale because the first party sees a worth that the second party is unaware of."
I said that that's not swindling. Then mysteriously you started talking about something totally different. Make up your mind.
What Apple is accused of has nothing to do with what your incorrect definition of swindling is.